CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017 and he had failed to bring his ill-treatment complaint to the attention of the authorities immediately after the alleged events, as he had not lodged his application with the Prosecutor General until 10 days after the alleged incident. The decision further referred to the author’s brother, who had been accused of having taken part in terrorist activities as a member of a terrorist organization. The circumstances undermined the credibility of the author’s account of the events, leading to the conclusion that there were no grounds for opening a criminal case. 2.13 On 9 September 2013, the author challenged the 3 September 2013 decision before the Garrison Court. On 17 September 2013, his complaint was dismissed on the same grounds as those put forward by the investigator. On 11 October 2013, the Military Court upheld the decision of the Garrison Court on appeal. The author appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal on 4 December 2013. Complaint 3.1 The author claims a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and articles 9 (1) and (2) and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, on account of ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty by agents of the State party and lack of an effective domestic investigation into the matter. 3.2 Under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant, and with reference to article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, the author contends that, on 27 December 2010, he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers who beat him up with the aim of forcing him to confess to being guilty of a crime. He further contends that no effective investigation was carried out into his ill-treatment. The investigative authorities failed to conduct a full-fledged investigation into the matter, consistently ignoring the physical injuries that he had sustained, the existence of which was confirmed by medical documents. 4 Furthermore, the authorities failed to keep the author and his legal counsel informed about the course of the preliminary inquiry and key procedural decisions taken in the case. 3.3 The author raises the further complaint under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant that his detention between 4 p.m. on 27 December 2010 and 5 p.m. on 29 December 2010 was unlawful. His arrest was not recorded and he was not informed of the grounds for his deprivation of liberty, nor was he provided with legal assistance during the whole period of detention. 3.4 The author asks the Committee to establish a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and articles 9 (1) and (2) and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant and to recommend that the State party provide an effective remedy by conducting an investigation into the ill-treatment he suffered, sanctioning those responsible and providing him with adequate compensation and rehabilitation. He asks that measures be taken to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future, with an independent investigation mechanism in compliance with domestic legislation and international standards being set up and it being ensured that each deprivation of liberty is officially documented from the moment of detention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 17 January 2018, the State party submitted its observations, asserting that the author’s claims were unsubstantiated. It provides information on the author’s brother, his involvement in an organized criminal group and a criminal investigation into his activities. The State party notes that the author lived in the same house as his brother. The author’s brother was arrested on 29 December 2010. On 7 April 2011, he was charged with numerous crimes. A criminal case against him was brought to court on 15 April 2011. 4.2 The State party summarizes the author’s claims that he was arrested on 27 December 2010 and then ill-treated in the office of the State Committee for National Security and refers 4 4 The author provided the report from the hospital where he was treated and a forensic medical report dated 22 October 2012 issued by an expert commission.